The concepts, terms, and acronyms of Virtual Private Network (VPN) are well-known in the art. For example, the memorandum entitled BGP/MPLS VPNs, E. Rosen and Y. Rekhter, RFC 2547, March 1999, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), is an example of the literature regarding VPNs.
The ability to analyze VPNs has been limited by the network models that have been employed. For example, one model uses a Common Information Model (CIM) that defined objects and relationships. (see Common Information Model: Implementing the Object Model for Enterprise Management, Bumpus, et al., John Wiley & Sons, December 1999, ISBN: B00007FY8X). This model is limited by the pre-defined and standard objects and relationships defined in the Common Information Model (CIM). For example, one cannot easily capture the relationship between a VPN Routing and Forwarding Table (VRF) and a RouteTarget (RT). (See, for example, BGP/MPLS VPNs, E. Rosen and Y. Rekhter, RFC2547bis, IETF, July 2000.)
In a second model, the definition of MPLS and VPN Management Information Bases (MIBs) are established. (See, for example, SNMP, SNMPv2, SNMPv3, and RMON 1 and 2 (3rd Edition), William Stallings, Addison-Wesley Pub Co, December 1998, pages 71-162 ISBN: 0201485346). However, MIBs typically do not capture relationships between objects. For example the MPLS end-to-end Label-Switched Path (LSP) is difficult to represent explicitly in a MIB.
The lack of a systematic model specifically suited for the MPLS and/or VPN objects and relationships limits several forms of important analysis. For example, it is difficult to determine the members of each VPN; what is the role of each VPN member; what is the type of each VPN or sub-set of the VPN.
Hence there is a need in the industry for a method and system for analyzing VPN systems that overcomes known deficiencies in identifying VPN components and the VPN topology.